I'm saying the author(s) of this piece shouldn't pass off their speculation, correct or not, as fact.
Heck, my speculation is that the reason this article does overstate the case is to work readers up for more donations, but that's different than knowing so as a fact.
Personally I think the silence speaks for itself. If this wasn’t a story they had previously covered (very aggressively) it would be different, but it’s basically impossible that the media just doesn’t know about this.
Plus, they’ve all been pumping out anti-Assange propaganda at pretty much every opportunity. I don’t think standards of absolute factual correctness really apply when you’re criticizing organizations which regularly frame facts in a way which is deliberately misleading.
And even if it were true that they are exaggerating to try to get donations…that’s a lot less sinister than doing the bidding of the intelligence agencies in persecuting an innocent man for years. Regardless nobody is stopping you from making that claim, it’s up to others to decide whether or not it’s plausible.
Heck, my speculation is that the reason this article does overstate the case is to work readers up for more donations, but that's different than knowing so as a fact.